Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jennifer Connelly/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 18:52, 20 September 2011 [1].

Jennifer Connelly

[edit]

Jennifer Connelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox


Nominator(s): GDuwenTell me!, Gunt50 15:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a new peer review, the issues pointed out in the last FAC were fixed.GDuwenTell me! 15:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum

  • In the Early 2000s section we're told that the film A Beautiful Mind has grossed more than $313 million worldwide since its release. Then we're told that this is equivalent to $388.4 million as of 2011, but without any hint as to how that figure has been arrived at; in addition it's misleadingly precise – converted amount should not offer more significant figures than its source. But worst of all, looking at the raw text I see {{Inflation|US|313|2001|r=1}}. In other words even though the figure of £313 million is the lifetime gross, the whole amount is considered to have been earned a year before the film went on general release.
I corrected the year to 2002, and sourced the inflation value.--GDuwenTell me! 19:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't sourced the inflation value, as the $313 million wasn't all earned in 2002; it's given as the lifetime gross, i.e., earned between 2001 and 2011. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now I replaced the worldwide lifetime gross by the domestic gross to May 24–27 of 2002.--GDuwenTell me! 20:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not right. The domestic earnings for May 24–27 were $144,430, not $170 million; you've used the total domestic earnings since 2001. Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the total domestic gross between 2001 and 2002. Hope that solves the problem.--GDuwenTell me! 20:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what's going on here. So far all that's happened during this discussion is that you've removed the inflationary conversion (good), but also replaced the total worldwide gross with the total domestic gross for no obvious reason. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, OK. Once again I got it wrong, I'll restore the total worldwide gross again.--GDuwenTell me! 23:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the same section: "Impressed by Connelly's charisma, she and the others auditioned alongside Russell Crowe". Doesn't make sense.
I replaced "Impressed by Connelly's charisma.." by "Connelly and the others auditioned alongside Russell Crowe".
  • From the 2008–2011 Section: "... the remake featured Benson's in a troubled relationship with her stepson, portrayed by Jaden Smith".
Could you specify the problem with the sentence?--GDuwenTell me! 19:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Benson's". Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--GDuwenTell me! 20:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was included in the ensemble cast of the 2009 romantic comedy He's Just Not That Into You". What's an "ensemble cast?
I removed "ensemble"--GDuwenTell me! 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Connelly has contributed to several charities." Who hasn't?
Not everyone contributes to charity, the sentence is used to introduce the reader to Connelly's charity contributions.--GDuwenTell me! 19:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me put it this way; that she contributes to charity is in no way remarkable, as very many others do as well. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I removed the line.--GDuwenTell me! 20:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1990 Dennis Hopper directed The Hot Spot with Connelly cast as Gloria Harper". So he directed it with Connelly?
Corrected.--GDuwenTell me! 19:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Connelly has stated that she prefers life with her husband and children when she is not working ...". That sentence really makes no sense to me; what does she prefer when she is working? Sex, drugs, and rock and roll? Malleus Fatuorum 01:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now?--GDuwenTell me! 01:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It now says "Connelly has stated that she prefers life with her husband and children". Prefers it over what? Being on welfare handouts? Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the verb. You like it now, chief?--Gunt50 (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be going from bad to worse. The sentence now reads: "Connelly has stated that she enjoys the family life with her husband and children, in 2009 she cited her family, with whom she lives in TriBeCa, New York City, as the most important thing in her life." Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just remove it, it doesn't seem to be adding much information... Atomician (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just rephrased it. --Gunt50 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Atomician (talk) 08:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Atomician

As a sidenote (since Malleus looks to have this sorted), just taking a look through the refs, a lot of them are unreliable. If I made any mistakes, please cross them out.

Atomician (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The unreliable/questionable sources have been replaced.--GDuwenTell me! 21:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other sources issues: As well as the above possible issues of reliability there are a few format problems that need attention:-
  • You need to be consistent about using parentheses around publishers of printed media. See for example 3 versus 55. Also 63, 93. There are several other cases of missing parentheses.
I've been looking to the refs. I don't think it is actually a matter of inconsistency. The cite news template presents parentheses whereas the cite web doesn't. About printed sources note there are differences for example between cite journal and cite books templates. What you call inconsistency are the differences between them --Gunt50 (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you have chosen to give publisher details for all printed media, you need to add this to ref. 13 (as per ref. 1)
I don't see whats the problem. I assume it was fixed by GDuwen yesterday.--Gunt50 (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a slight problem with the format of ref. 19
Fixed --Gunt50 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 45: can you provide more identifying information for this DVD?
I've included all data available about it. Looking at the cite video template, I wouldn't really know what else should I add.--Gunt50 (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 70: Is the New York Times Company the publisher of the website "Boston.com"?
It is according to its homepage. --Gunt50 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - hey people. The article is generally in very good shape. I made a few minor edits, but I prefer to give you a few comments so that you can address them yourselves:
  • Lead: "who enjoyed a career as a child model" - I think enjoyed does not make much sense, I would change it to "started her career as a..."
Done.--Gunt50 (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after a friend of her parents suggested that she should audition" - I don't think it is very necessary in the lead.
I think it provides a context to the beginning of her career. Do you really think it should be removed?--Gunt50 (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think so at all. "a friend of her parents" makes me like, "so what?" Shahid • Talk2me 07:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.--GDuwenTell me! 04:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it is better to either mention all the directors in the lead or none; just be consistent. I, for one, cannot see why the director of Dark City is not mentioned while the director of Requiem for a Dream is.
Done
It is not done... Shahid • Talk2me 07:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the names of all the directors.--GDuwenTell me! 04:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2002, Connelly won an Academy Award, a Golden Globe Award and a BAFTA award as a supporting actress for her portrayal of Alicia Nash in Ron Howard's biopic A Beautiful Mind." - first, I think the awards should not be linked to the category pages, but to the actual awards. Please capitalise the "award" of BAFTA. I'd also change it from "as a supporting actress for her portrayal" to "for her supporting role of".
Done.--GDuwenTell me! 04:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still" - if I see something like "a remake of..." I would expect to get a link to the original film on which the remake in question is based.
Done. --Gunt50 (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they have two children together and she has a child from a previous relationship." - omit "together". A previous relationship with whom? I think this must be mentioned. I would even mention it in a new sentence.
Done
  • Shouldn't it be "the face of" and not "the face for"?
Done.--Gunt50 (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Life and career: If her entire life is presented under one certain heading level, then "Life and career" does not seem to be contributing anything. I find "birth" from "Birth and early life" to be quite redundant.
I removed the redundant "birth". Is that what you wanted me to do?--Gunt50 (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Connelly gained public recognition with her next picture, the 1986 fantasy film Labyrinth" - I would start the section with "In 1986". I don't think "next picture" adds much as it is a new section, though it's not critical. The NYT review of Labyrinth is a little long, so I think the last sentence of the quote (from "Since the film has only five") is better removed and the "The New York Times panned her portrayal" is changed to, "The New York Times, while noting the importance of her part, panned her portrayal".
Done. --Gunt50 (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Career Opportunities: "Criticized for exploiting Connelly's image, the complaints were caused by an ad that showed..." - this is very vague. Who was criticised? The complaints? :)
I rephrased a bit the phrase. is it better now?--GDuwenTell me! 04:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref number 26 is a blog.
It is a journalistic one from the Southern Cali Public Radio. I'm not sure about this one being unreliable.--Gunt50 (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1995, Connelly demonstrated her ability to handle more mature roles" - seems to be a bit subjective, unless proper attribution is given.
removed.--GDuwenTell me! 04:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She subsequently began to appear in small budget but well-regarded films" - hmmm... a little problematic, the "but" seems to imply as though small budget film cannot be "well-regarded" which in itself is not a very clear kind of wording because the first question that pops up in my mind is "regarded by whom?". How about "small budget films which did well with critics"
I rephrased it.--Gunt50 (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her breakthrough film, Requiem for a Dream" - again, seems to be a personal opinion. Should be changed to something like, "she appeared in what was considered/described by critics to be her breakthrough film..."
Done.--Gunt50 (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re A Beautiful Mind: "Other actresses who auditioned for the role included Rachel Weisz, Hilary Swank, Mira Sorvino and Frances O'Connor." - completely irrelevant. "Connelly and the others auditioned alongside Russell Crowe" - better as, "Connelly and Crowe auditioned along with other actors." As for "Howard and the producers noted the impressive chemistry between Crowe and Connelly and chose her for the part", they did not only choose her as Crowe auditioned too. How about, "Reportedly, Howard and the producers eventually chose them for their respective parts after being particularly impressed by their screen chemistry." Also, "The film was a critical and commercial success, grossing more than..., and earning Connelly" - As the sentence starts with describing the film's achievements first, I think it's better to mention the awards the film itself won at the Academy Awards. Then, a new sentence should start with: "For her portrayal, Connelly earned..."
I have rephrased the sentences.--GDuwenTell me! 03:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it's enough for now. Good luck to you and I'll post some other comments later. Shahid • Talk2me 22:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments - well-done so far, I've made a few minor changes here and there, but here we go:
  • I would first like to pay your attention to the correct use of punctuation marks: Please remember that only quotations that follow and support an assertion should be set off by a colon (rather than a comma). As in, "One critic wrote: 'She is...'" is improper. There should not be a colon there but a comma. A colon should be used in a sentence like: "Critic X described her performance as her best to date: 'She delivers her best.'" Anyway, I think I've taken care of most such instances in the article.
I found two more. Check out my edits. I think the issue has been addressed.--Gunt50 (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly done, some you have changed but shouldn't have, :) like "New York Magazine praised her performance:" - there should be a comma because the quote supports this assertion. And it's not only about critics' reviews, there are also other instances when Connelly is quoted, and there's a colon instead of a comma. If you like, I'll do it tomorrow from A to Z. I'm a bit short of time now. Shahid • Talk2me 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly appreciate if you could do that. I corrected the one you mentioned.--GDuwenTell me! 01:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. :) Shahid • Talk2me 07:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remember that if the year of a film's release is not mentioned in a sentence, then it should be presented in parentheses right after the link to the film. In the lead I see a sentence, "Other film credits include the Marvel superhero film Hulk, the thriller Dark Water, the drama Blood Diamond, the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still and the romantic comedy He's Just Not That Into You." - please mention the years. Also, "other film credits" is a bit vague. It should be changed to something like, "her later film credits include". I still find "remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still" a bit problematic. Maybe it's better to change it to "the science fiction The Day the Earth Stood Still"?
Done.--Gunt50 (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but I would still suggest to present the years in parentheses, though it's not critical. Shahid • Talk2me 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't use them to preserve the consistency since the rest of the years on the lead ain't presented in parentheses.--Gunt50 (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early 2000s: re House of Sand and Fog, is "The struggles between Kathy and Behrani intensify throughout the story leading to a tragic end." really necessary? Additionally, "The film was well-received worldwide and was given critical acclaim" - is like repeating the same thing in two different versions. I think one of the two must be omitted; I would suggest, "The film was given worldwide critical acclaim."
I rephrased the sentence you mentioned. What is the thing you think is unnecessary? The plot part?--Gunt50 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Particularly the "tragic end" part. Shahid • Talk2me 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the plot.--Gunt50 (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2005-2007: Is there a particular reason why she decided to take a two-year break from movies? If yes, then please mention it.
I think it was after giving birth to her second son in 2003, but no particular reason was described to the media. --Gunt50 (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? I mean, two years is no mean thing. I'm almost sure she did cite a reason, and it's very essential info. Shahid • Talk2me 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I swear I couldn't found anything about that. All I can see is an empty spot on her filmography. The sources don't indicate any reason.--Gunt50 (talk) 01:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Dark Water: Just curious, why does the article use a Roger Ebert review referenced to a book source if a proper link is available on the net?
I'm loth to change it since the book won't be removed from the net as it could happen to the link. I could change it anyway if you're sure about this point.--Gunt50 (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind, I would cite the net link, but if you think the book is a better choice, then it's fine by me. :) Shahid • Talk2me 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to add once again that ref 26 is a blog and would not quialify as a reliable source. I'm sure there are many other and better sources.
I replaced it with one of them.--Gunt50 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal life: I'm a bit undecided on this one but I wonder how useful the following quote is: "...who, according to her statements, are the most important thing in her life" - I mean, it goes without saying that one's family and children are most important to them.
I think it is actually useful. It shows she's a family person. Those were her statements. However, I can remove it if you're completely sure about it.--Gunt50 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh I see your point. I would not want my personal opinions to be taken as firm assertions. I think it can be discussed, but one thing I'm sure about, this needs some polishing with a copy edit. I think it could be written just you wrote it here, that she describes herself as family-oriented and is devoted to her family. I'm sure there can be found some interviews to support the claim. What's your take? Shahid • Talk2me 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found some references to her family-oriented personality in references 3 and 85, but I think it'd probably be better to remove the phrase if it is much of a big problem.--Gunt50 (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you could add something like, "Connelly describes herself a very family-oriented person", that'd be good. Shahid • Talk2me 07:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the quote that her family is the most important thing to her is useful and should stay in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a quite, I also think it's useful, but I think it could be reworded. Any suggestions? Shahid • Talk2me 13:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not go back and re-read the section - I thought it was a quote. Agree that the information should be in the article, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Connelly speaks Italian and French fluently" - first, it doesn't really flow well with the text. Secondly, shouldn't it be mentioned in the Early life section?
Why should I mention it up there? What has that to do with her early career?--Gunt50 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not early career, early life. :) After all, if she is fluent in other languages then she most probably have spoken them since childhood. Shahid • Talk2me 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found references supporting that she learned those during her childhood. I think it could probably be the case with Italian (I believe a part of her debut movie was shot in Italy), and I have no idea about French. The references only mention she speaks those languages.--GDuwenTell me! 01:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I shall return tomorrow and take a final glance at the article. Thank you, Shahid • Talk2me 21:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch. I was involved in the two most recent peer reviews and have just re-read the article. It has improved greatly and I feel it meets the FA criteria now. It seems odd to remove photos of someone several reputable publications have named one of the most beautiful women in the world (there used to be two more free images of her). I made a few copyedits as I read - feel free to revert or tweak them if I made things worse. I still have two nit-picks which do not detract from my support.

  • Jim Henson needs to be linked and better identified in connection with the film Labyrinth (he is in the NYT quote, but the MOS discourages links in direct quotations): Perhaps Mr. Henson gave too much attention to his puppets and not enough to developing a compelling performance in his lead actress.
I linked his name on the phrase Jim Henson's 1986 fantasy film Labyrinth.
  • In the 2008-2011 section, should this be in past tense? The film is based on the self-help book of the same name.[74] i.e. "The film was based..."
Done.--Gunt50 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, inclined to support: This article is almost unrecognisable since I last saw it, and the work done on it has been tremendous. The prose is looking pretty good, and I have just one or two queries. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "who started a career as a child model": A career sounds a little odd, in conjunction with started, making it sound like she just decided one day to have a go at being a child model! What about "began her career as a child model"?
  • "After Connelly's frequent appearances as a model, her mother started to take her to acting auditions…" This phrasing suggests a connection between her modelling appearances and her mother taking her to auditions. If there is, it should be spelt out. If not, I would suggest cutting the phrase "After Connelly's frequent appearances as a model".
  • "her mother started to take her to acting auditions[6] where she was selected for a supporting role as Deborah Gelly…" She went to lots of auditions for this part, or she was successful at one audition of many (I would assume she auditioned for lots of films)? If the latter, what about "…auditions; at one of these, she was selected…"
  • "In a scene from the film, Connelly had to perform a ballet routine. During the audition for the role, and without any knowledge of the dance, she attempted to imitate a ballerina, which convinced the director to include her in the cast.": Not sure about this. Is it important or could it go? And it doesn't quite make sense to me; did he award the part because she was good or because she had the nerve to pretend to know ballet? Either way, I would suggest re-phrasing.
    • I still don't think it makes clear why he thought it was good; it now says "Her performance convinced the director to include her in the cast". Does this mean her ballet was so good, though she had never done it before, that he cast her? Or was it he admired her nerve? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of 1980s-1990s is very short; could it be merged somewhere?
  • "Hughes was criticized for exploiting Connelly's image, People magazine deplored an advertisement that showed…" This is a very long sentence, and I wonder if the comma should be a semi-colon? At the moment, the sentence reads like it is listing problems with the film. I'm assuming the two parts of the sentence are directly connected.
  • "reportedly, Howard and the producers eventually chose them…" How reliable is "reportedly"? Who said so?
  • "Publications such as Vanity Fair, Esquire, and the Los Angeles Times have included her in their rankings of the most beautiful women in the world." This seems a little tacked on, and the whole paragraph feels a little odd where it is, as it interrupts the flow of her films. Maybe move it to Personal life?
  • A minor thing, but is the NYT used too much for reviews of her performances? It would be good to hear other opinions, but I appreciate they may not exist so don't feel that this is a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on the issues. As you pointed out NYT is used frequently for critics, but for her performances in some movies it's difficult to find something that focuses on her acting rather than in the movie. Just to mention, in "A Beautiful Mind", I just removed the word "Reportedly", the source mentions as a fact that Howard selected her for the Chimestry with Mr. Crowe.--GDuwenTell me! 01:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm happy to support this now as I think it meets the criteria. No doubt there are bits of prose that could still be tidied up, but I think the overall effect is very good and I am impressed with the work and dedication that has gone into this article. There are two unstuck comments; the second one I do not expect anything to be done about and the first does not affect my support. One final minor nitpick is that the last paragraph is a bit choppy as it seems to fit in a bit of extra information, but I am not sure that much can be done about it and it is not a major issue. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - most of my comments and suggestions have been addressed. It was nice seeing this article progessing so well. The article is generally well-written, comprehensive, focused, and well sourced. It could be improved and a few copyedits would definitely make it better, but then, there's no such thing as 'complete' on Wikipedia. I support; well-done, friends. Shahid • Talk2me 10:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry but a distinct lack of research with books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there isn't a particular requirement for books as long as articles are properly cited with reliable sources. And the article does use several book sources. Shahid • Talk2me 13:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. A featured article should be the best possible article on a given subject. If you blindly ignore a vast pool of potential sources the job isn't being done as good as it could be. Yes it is a well written article but the best articles are always those which are widely researched. The article writer/s might be surprised what they might find in google books which gives different perspectives on certain film and her roles. Of course many sources may be no more valuable than any of the newspaper sources but browsing through the sheer quantity of sources available in google books it does seem like this could be better researched and could be written from a more even balance of sources. If I was convinced that this current article is the best possible article we could write on her then I'd support it being promoted. But I strongly suspect if I did some research through all those books available I could considerably strengthen the current article. That's my point. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the cited sources are enough. Taking as an example other FA's such as Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jake Gyllenhaal, Kirsten Dunst, Emma Watson, Eric Bana and Reese Witherspoon, just to name some, the sources of those are exact the same, (magazines, newspapers, bios from reliable sources). In most cases, books are not even used. Taking a look at Diane Keaton, the only book used is the biography of Woody Allen, and it's only under further reading, not used as a source for information.--GDuwenTell me! 17:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to laziness more than anything to get every bit of material from the newspapers on the web, especially biographical details. In the cases where a wealth of information and sources exists in books and magazines which can be accessed in google books it is a crime to simply ignore them. What about Clint Eastwood? I could have relied on newspapers solely to write that too. Woody Allen should have a similar number of book sources and Diane Keaton should most certainly have more book sources. Connelly has been around much longer than the likes of Maggie Gyllenhaal and Emma Watson, not in the league of Eastwood or Allen but google books shows there to be a large pool of potential resources even if not biographies like there are on Eastwood and Allen. You are obviously so keen to push this to FA having done so on your fourth attempt. I don't know how you could do so when you haven't even bothered to do full research and at least assure yourself it could not be improved further. Look I don't mean to imply you are lazy as you've spent a lot of time on this article, I just think you should have researched all sources at your disposal before posting for FA that's all. You clearly haven't even looked in google books and that is just not good enough at this level. Sorry, I'm sure you'll all disagree with me that it "is not neccessary to use google books" but in my view FAs should show evidence of wide reading and that time has been spent searching for them. If an article on an actor uses almost entirely newspapers then it looks like wider research hasn't been done and they simply lifted the nearest source they could find on the web. If you don't look through all sources which are presented to you on the Internet through google books in addition to your web paper sources then I do not know how you can stand here with confidence and say "this article is as good as it can possibly be". ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked several of the publications available on google books. It offers similar info in comparison to the online sources cited. First, I really respect your work on Clint Eastwood's. You might say JC has been around longer in comparison to other actresses mentioned, but you should consider Diane Keaton's article. It's a way longer career and only one book citation has been used, and it is still a FA. I don't see what's the problem when most of the things you can find on google books contain the same info that we included on the article, like film reviews or bio content (note source 22).--Gunt50 (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just searching Jennifer Connelly Once Upon a Time in America for instance it turns up sources like [2] [3] [4] [5]. I'm not saying that it is always necessary to use them or even possible to be able to access them all or that they are of any use but unless you use google books as a tool for writing articles to at least make the decision whether to use the sources available or not you can't really be certain you are not missing anything of note. I just think you'd be amazed at what you can sometimes pick up with snippets in google books that's all. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of them are available for a snippet view (at least in my area). I can't do anything reading a few lines.--Gunt50 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snippets can usually be found doing a google search for the inaccesible ones. OK here's a better example of source you can actually access. Ebert's and Beradichelli's book. Quotes like "Meanwhile, Jennifer Connelly is luminous as Alicia". "Although the showier performance belongs to Crowe, it is Connelly's complex work, depicting a woman torn by love for and fear of the same man, that elevates the film to a higher level.". The latter to me would be a crucial quote and superior to most of the other reviews you've used of her performance. Especially coming from Ebert it would be an essential quote for me and very notable in discussing her acting. I could cite examples like this for practically every film she appeared in where some stronger material can be found on the subject. This is exactly what I mean, you really might miss something substantial of major importance either critically or biographically by ignoring google book research. What I would do is weigh up discussions/critical analysis in google book sources and view the standard review si the web newspapers and try to draw out the strongest and most effective material. Sometimes newspapers have better material on a subject, sometimes book do. An FA in my view should show evidence that a breadth of material has been weighed up and used to its full advantage to write the best possible material. Connely has appeared in some very notable pictures which are critically analysed in books which may be accessible and may offer different perspectives and insights into her portrayal and themes. Sorry I don't mean to "gatecrash" your FAC unfairly but this is how I feel about sourcing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose on references. Many are not using the proper template (Cite news, Cite web). Additionally, some un-reliable sources (IMDB?) and several inconsistencies with ref linking. Many similar sources are so differently formatted. Take #37 and 62. Also, whats with #98. The proper work would be The Boston Globe. These issues can easily be fixed with patience. I have watch-listed this page and would be happy to revisit once they are addressed.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't used IMDB. It is only mentioned as the publisher of Box Office Mojo. I corrected the ref 98 work. Could you give some examples of the inconsistencies you spotted or unproper templates. We haven't found any inconsistencies on theses aspects when checked the article before nominating.--Gunt50 (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. What makes #40 reliable? Why is IMDB listed, when Amazon is the publisher for BOM? #52 has some problematic formatting. #59 uses the wrong template, so does #63. Similar issues like like persist.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the citations one by one, and replaced the wrong templates. I also completed some missing information and I assessed the rest of your concerns.--GDuwenTell me! 17:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should contact Petergriffin9901 on his talk page so he reviews the changes and reconsiders his stand. Shahid • Talk2me 11:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User GDuwen posted a message on his talk page some days ago, but still there ain't no answer.--Gunt50 (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—I think this is a solid article that more than satisfies the FA criteria, so I'm lending it my support. The citations seem to be in decent shape now, so I had no concerns there. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I only found a pair of problem sentences, one of which I already rectified. The second is a sentence that seems to conflate two separate reviews: Time called her performance "luminous", Roger Ebert wrote, "...Jennifer Connelly is luminous as Alicia. .... Otherwise, I'm ready to support. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There two different reviews that call ms. Connelly's performance "luminous", but to avoid further confusion I removed the one from Time.--GDuwenTell me! 23:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't see a need to go that far, so I took the liberty of restoring the content and modifying it slightly. I hope that meets with your approval. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, it's much better now.--GDuwenTell me! 18:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jennifer_Connelly/archive4&oldid=1086103360"